Not to show my age, but my first time was 1996. It was great and made me feel like a responsible adult. Now, some people have taken offense to the ad below, but I don't think there's anything wrong with implying that voting is sexy. That's the beauty of feminism - it encompasses such a wide variety of perspectives - the main point is equality. And when it comes to voting, women haven't been stepping up equally with men. 20 million women did not vote in the last election, which means that they chose not to make a difference on reproductive health, among other issues.
Last week New Jersey became the fourth state to pull itself out of the federal scheme to distribute abstinence-only-until-marriage money. New Jersey, like Maine and California before it, decided that in addition to never having been proven effective as a broad strategy, the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage programs ran contrary to its own state's laws regarding sexuality education. If the state chose to accept the nearly $1 million of federal funds it was entitled to, it would not only have had to follow strict federal rules, it would also have had come up with a match of three state-raised dollars to every federal dollar. New Jersey's decision was therefore not just principled, but fiscally responsible as well.
"It supplemented factual information with a value judgment."
With that one sentence, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals not only struck down a South Dakota law dictating values to doctors and patients, but also summed up social conservative ideology, their campaign tactics and their governing majority that makes social conservatives responsible and accountable for every branch of government today.
The South Dakota law would have required doctors who perform abortions to tell women that they are about to "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” The Federal Appeals Court wrote, “Unlike the truthful, nonmisleading medical and legal information doctors were required to disclose” in the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “the South Dakota statute requires abortion doctors to enunciate the state’s viewpoint on an unsettled medical, philosophical, theological and scientific issue, that is, whether a fetus is a human being.”
While Rewire likes to be ahead of the curve in terms of our use of technology, we certainly haven't mastered it all. We are glad to report about good use of technology for reproductive health advocacy, even when it isn't us.
Naina Dhingra is the Director of International Policy at Advocates for Youth and serves on the Developed Country NGO Board Delegation of the Global Fund.
What do the President of MTV International, the former Norwegian Minister of International Development, and a senior Republican Congressman from Arizona have in common? They all are candidates for the top job at the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. As I wrote in my last blog, it truly is election season this November.
The 14th Board meeting of the Global Fund starts this week in Guatemala City and the most important decision Board members will make is the selection of who will take the reigns and lead this start-up development institution to maturity. The Global Fund was born just five years ago as an experiment in development and health financing. At the outset, the vision of the Global Fund was to serve as financing mechanism rather than an implementing agency by putting countries in the driver's seat to develop programs to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. History has proven that the experiment and the vision worked.
We have the power. We can make a difference. On issues like reproductive health - contraception, abortion, sexuality education, HIV & STI prevention, access to healthcare... the list goes on and on. Voting is important. But for some reason, 20 million women choose not to exercise that power. They don't act to make a difference.
The ad below is one in a series of Public Service Announcements by "Women's Voices. Women Vote." designed to reach these 20 million women, in the hope that in this critical upcoming election they will get out and vote.
Dr. Connie Mitchell is a nationally recognized expert on the health care of victims of violence and abuse. She serves on the AMA National Advisory Council on Violence and Abuse and is a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
I believe that the people who have financed and supported Proposition 85 are sincere, so I must ask: what do they really want? Decreased teenage abortion rates? More parental involvement with teens? Time to explore all the pros and cons of a decision regarding abortion? Whatever the real goals of Prop. 85, as Senator Clinton said in a recent phone message about this initiative: "We can do better."
If the goal of Prop. 85 is to reduce teenage abortion rates, we can do this a better way. Teen pregnancy and abortion rates are already declining in California. California was one of the first states to refuse federal funding for sex education, because educators wanted to ensure that young men and women in our state get complete information about their sexual health. If the backers of Prop. 85 really want to reduce teen pregnancy rates, they should help support legislation that requires and funds comprehensive sexuality education. We must also ensure that teens who do become sexually active - despite our concerns that their minds are not as mature as their bodies - have access to contraception. If they're not ready for sex, then by all means, they're not ready for a baby.
Arizona Senator John Kyl has been attempting to hide his extreme views recently, but his anti-choice record is undeniable. According to Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America:
“Jon Kyl is one of the most rigid anti-choice senators in Washington and his actions have real consequences for women’s everyday lives. Arizona women need to know Kyl’s anti-choice record before they vote in November.”
A new study released this week suggests that there is a link, (a fairly significant-sounding link actually), between breast cancer and oral contraceptives. What the study has going for it is that it was published in the very legitimate, peer-reviewed journal Mayo Proceedings, from the Mayo Clinic. But while we are not inclined to question the integrity of the Mayo Clinic, we do think there are some serious questions to be considered about the report.
